J-A04024-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

JOHN M. MACARTHUR, 

 Appellant No. 293 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 21, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0002499-2014 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., and SHOGAN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 30, 2016 

 Appellant, John M. MacArthur, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence of a $300.00 fine, imposed following his conviction for the 

summary offense of scattering rubbish, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6501(a)(1) 

(hereinafter, “littering”). The issues in this appeal evolved out of the citing 

officer’s failure to list his own badge number on the littering citation, and 

that officer’s subsequent effort(s) to amend the citation to correct that error. 

Appellant claims, inter alia, that the amending of the citation violated his 

due process rights. After careful review, we affirm. 

 Appellant was initially convicted of littering before a magistrate, and 

then again at a de novo hearing held before the summary appeals court. 

The summary appeals court summarized the pertinent facts giving rise to 

the instant appeal as follows: 
J-A04024-16 

- 2 - 

At the de novo hearing, Officer Matthew Lucas, a Sergeant 

with the Bellevue Borough Police Department, testified that on 

August 16, 2014, the Chief of the Bellevue Borough Police 

Department assigned him to a plain-clothes detail on Lincoln 

Avenue for the purpose of enforcing the anti-littering statute. 

Officer Lucas testified that he observed [Appellant] as he walked 

past him in the early afternoon on August 16, 2015. As 

[Appellant] walked toward a pharmacy entrance, he turned and 

threw his cigarette onto the street. 

Officer Lucas stopped [Appellant] and identified himself. The 

Officer then requested a second officer at the location. Officer 

Dunker responded and Officer Lucas issued a Citation to 

[Appellant]. Officer Lucas used Officer Dunker's laptop computer 

to issue the Citation and print it and hand it to [Appellant]. 

[Appellant] did not deny that he threw the cigarette butt on 

the street and that Officer Lucas observed him while he did it. 

Instead, [Appellant] argued that the Citation was defective and, 

therefore, prejudiced him in some way. He failed to explain the 

nature or effect of the alleged prejudice. 

The "defect" in the Citation issued to [Appellant] on August 

16, 2014, concerned the badge number typed on the Citation. 

Officer Lucas requested permission from the Court to amend the 

Citation which bore the badge number of Officer Dun[ker] (31) 

to Officer Lucas's badge number (18). He explained that the 

mistake was due to a clerical error. Officer Lucas testified that 

he was the officer who stopped [Appellant], introduced himself 

and issued the Citation to [Appellant]. [Appellant] also testified 

that Officer Lucas was the officer who stopped him and issued 

the Citation. 

Officer Lucas explained the error on the original Citation: 

When I called Officer Dunker down to my location I 

actually used his laptop because I was on plain-clothes 

detail and I didn't have access to one. So when I called 

the detail officer down, Officer Dunker arrived. I used his 

log-in, just to try to respect [Appellant]'s time and not tie 

him up for any longer than I needed to. And when I 

printed the citation, it defaulted to Officer Dunker's badge 

number. That's how that clerical error occurred. 
J-A04024-16 

- 3 - 

Officer Lucas also testified that he amended the Citation at 

the hearing before the Magisterial District Court prior to 

testimony but while [Appellant] was present. 

Summary Appeals Court Opinion (SACO), 4/27/15, at 1-3 (citations to the 

record omitted). 

 As noted above, Appellant was cited on August 16, 2014, and 

appeared before a magistrate. The magistrate found Appellant guilty of 

littering. Appellant filed a timely summary appeal, which was heard at a de 

novo hearing before the Honorable Robert A. Gallo of the Summary Appeals 

Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Following the 

hearing, Judge Gallo found Appellant guilty and imposed a $300.00 fine. 

 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He also filed a timely, courtordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Judge Gallo issued a Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on April 27, 2015. Appellant is pro se. 

 In his brief, Appellant presents the following questions for our review: 

[1.] Is [A]ppellant entitled to reversal of the Summary Appeal 

Trial Court's verdict or a new trial because the erroneous 

conclusion the Summary Appeal Trial Court made of the 

citation[’s] having been amended on August 19, 2014 violated 

both [A]ppellant's Procedural Due Process rights under the 5th 

and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 

codified at Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, 

Sections §1, §9 and § 10, and because the prosecution is unable 

to show that the error in concluding that the citation was 

amended on August 19, 2014 was harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt? 

[2.] Is [A]ppellant entitled to a reversal of the Summary Appeal 

Trial Court's verdict or a new trial because [A]ppellant provided 

the Summary Appeal Trial Court with evidence of improper and 

prejudicial ex parte communication had occurred before the 

September 29, 2014 Magisterial District Court hearing? 
J-A04024-16 

- 4 - 

[3.] Is the sufficiency of the evidence supportive of the 

Summary Appeal Court's finding that the Commonwealth 

established by clear and convincing evidence that [A]ppellant 

should be found guilty of violating [18 Pa.C.S. § 6501(a)(1)]? 

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (citations omitted). 

Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary 

conviction heard de novo by the trial court is limited to a 

determination of whether an error of law has been committed 

and whether the findings of fact are supported by competent 

evidence. Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 

2002). “The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed 

on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” 

Commonwealth v. Parks, 768 A.2d 1168, 1171 (Pa. Super. 

2001). 

Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249, 251 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

 Appellant’s first two claims concern the matter of Officer Lucas’ 

amendment of the citation to reflect his own badge number. Essentially, 

Appellant contends the citation amendment was conducted ex parte before 

the magistrate, thereby violating his state and federal due process rights. 

Despite obvious and numerous defects in Appellant’s brief,1 we will address 

this matter. 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The defects in the form of Appellant’s pro se brief are too numerous to list. 

Most noticeable, however, is that the “Argument” section of Appellant’s brief 

contains virtually no arguments, but instead merely summarily states three 

reasons why Appellant believes himself to be entitled to relief, without any 

reference to the record or citation to any pertinent legal authorities. See

Appellant’s Brief at 14; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument shall be 

divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall 

have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively 

displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion 

and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Nevertheless, 

Appellant does provide such arguments, references to the record, and 

citation to ostensibly relevant legal authorities in the “Relevant Procedural 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-A04024-16 

- 5 - 

 The summary appeals court concluded that Appellant failed to 

substantiate that ex parte communications occurred. SACO, at 3 

(“[Appellant] fails to set forth any factual basis for such an averment. He 

also fails to show the substance of such communications, how or where they 

took place[,] or the parties involved.”). In any event, the court also 

concluded that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the 

substance or manner of Officer Lucas’ amendment. 

 We find it unnecessary to address the merits of whether a due process 

violation occurred because, even assuming the amendment to the littering 

citation violated some principle of due process, we agree with the summary 

appeals court that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was 

prejudiced by it. 

Our rules of criminal procedure provide that: 

A defendant shall not be discharged nor shall a case be 

dismissed because of a defect in the form or content of a 

complaint, citation, summons, or warrant, or a defect in the 

procedures of these rules, unless the defendant raises the defect 

before the conclusion of the trial in a summary case or before 

the conclusion of the preliminary hearing in a court case, and the 

defect is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 109 (emphasis added). 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

History” portion of his brief. Id. at 4-13. Despite the Commonwealth’s 

arguments that we should deem Appellant’s claims waived due to these 

defects, see Commonwealth’s Brief at 14, we decline to do so, as the 

defects do not substantially impair our ability to address Appellant’s claims. 
J-A04024-16 

- 6 - 

At the summary appeal hearing, Appellant did not contest whether 

Officer Lucas issued the citation to him on August 16, 2014: 

THE COURT: Okay. Now let me ask you this, sir. Did you know 

– you saw Officer Lucas on the street? 

[Appellant]: I didn’t know who he was. 

THE COURT: But you saw him there? 

[Appellant]: Well, I saw a young man -- 

THE COURT: Yeah. 

[Appellant]: -- leaning against the wall. 

THE COURT: Okay. Now, are you saying it was or wasn’t Officer 

Lucas? 

[Appellant]: You know what? I don’t – it was a while ago. He 

says he might have had sunglasses, maybe not. 

THE COURT: Okay. Sir, just answer the question. Did you or 

did you not see him? 

[Appellant]: I saw a young man -- 

THE COURT: Okay. 

[Appellant]: -- who I later learned was Sergeant Lucas. 

THE COURT: Yes, he introduced himself, he was Sergeant Lucas. 

[Appellant]: Yes, sir. 

N.T., 1/21/15, at 32-33. 

 Given Appellant’s admission, we cannot comprehend how he was 

prejudiced by the manner in which the citation was amended to reflect an 

effectively undisputed fact. If it is not critical to Appellant’s defense(s) to 

the citation whether Officer Lucas was the officer who observed the violation 

and issued the citation, then the manner in which the citation was amended 
J-A04024-16 

- 7 - 

could not have prejudiced him. The only argument we can ascertain from 

Appellant’s brief that touches upon his burden of demonstrating prejudice is 

Appellant’s bald assertion that the ex parte amendment of the citation at the 

magistrate’s office evidenced “a conspiracy to find him guilty” of littering. 

Appellant’s Brief at 7. This argument is absurd on its face, and not founded 

on any facts of record. Appellant neither explains why he would be targeted 

in such a conspiracy, nor what purpose or whose interests such a conspiracy 

would serve. 

 In any event, Officer Lucas sought to amend the citation in open court 

before Judge Gallo during the summary appeals proceeding. N.T., 1/21/15, 

at 3-4. Thus, whatever ex parte communication or related due process error 

that arose before the magistrate was not repeated and was, therefore, 

corrected at the summary appeals court, given that the summary appeals 

proceeding constituted a de novo trial. A de novo trial is not merely an 

appeal from a conviction before a magistrate; “‘[d]e novo’ review entails, as 

the term suggests, full consideration of the case anew. The reviewing body 

is in effect substituted for the prior decision maker and re[-]decides the 

case.” Rebert v. Rebert, 757 A.2d 981, 984 (Pa. Super. 2000). Thus, we 

conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief with respect to his first two 

claims. 

 Appellant’s third claim concerns the sufficiency of the evidence. 

Our standard of review of sufficiency claims is well-settled: 
J-A04024-16 

- 8 - 

A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a 

question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support 

the verdict when it establishes each material element of the 

crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to 

support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in 

contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then 

the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a 

sufficiency claim[,] the court is required to view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the 

prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn 

from the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) (internal 

citations omitted). 

 Although Appellant lists a sufficiency claim in his statement of the 

questions presented, see Appellant’s Brief at 2, we could only find two short 

references to this claim in the remainder of his brief. Specifically, in the 

section titled, “Summary of the Argument,” Appellant baldly states: “There is 

not sufficient evidence in the record to find [A]ppellant guilty and the verdict 

should be set aside due to insufficient evidence to support that finding.” Id.

at 13. Subsequently, in the “Conclusion” section of his brief, Appellant 

baldly states: “The trial court’s order finding [Appellant] guilty of violating 

[18 Pa.C.S. § 6501(a)(1)] should be set aside due to insufficient evidence to 

support that finding under the clear and convincing standard.” Id. at 14. 

 Appellant’s bald assertions, the complete absence of any 

accompanying argument, the lack of any citations to legal authorities (other 

than the statute at issue) and any discussion thereof, and the lack of any 

references to the record supporting this claim, collectively lead to our 
J-A04024-16 

- 9 - 

conclusion that Appellant has waived this claim for our review. See 

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“This 

Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an 

appellant.... Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct 

meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find 

certain issues to be waived.”) (citation omitted) 

Thus, in summary, we agree with the summary appeals court that 

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the 

amendment to the littering citation that ostensibly occurred before the 

magistrate. We also conclude that Appellant has waived any sufficiency 

claim. 

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 3/30/2016